The link
The reason America never fixes its problems is that it believes they will auto-correct. This article is the ideological foundation of authoritarianism. If you prefer to smear it, I guess you could call it “emergency dictatorship,” “capitalism in decay” or “fascism.” It is the idea that freedom and liberty “don’t work,” but the logical conclusion is that authority is needed to patch society. It is not really stressing class conflict or the need for the complete elimination of private property, and thus not really addressing the issue from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint but a corrective authoritarian standpoint.

It requires a religious belief in capitalism in order to keep trying to succeed against all odds, because otherwise it is easier to give up. After all, to succeed requires many failed attempts and/or a special networking connection, especially in this global economic meltdown. I can attest to the fact that most hardcore entrepreneurs truly believe these values.

WASHINGTON — The most popular religion in America isn’t Christianity, as most of us have been taught to believe. The most cherished belief system celebrates the principles of unfettered capitalism.

That misplaced faith in free markets was on display in this past Thursday’s health care summit, when — between sound bites and talking points — Republicans argued that “choice and competition” would largely resolve the country’s health care problems. That belief — that the arbitrary, confusing and consumer-unfriendly policies and practices that we euphemistically call a health care “system” can be transformed by relying on free market principles — is confounding.

Except for beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Affairs system — all government-run insurance programs — those of us who have insurance are utterly reliant on the private market. That’s what got us into the mess we’re in.

The health care market simply doesn’t operate like the market for cars or computers or flat-screen TVs. Sony and Samsung make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can. Health insurance companies make their profits by selling as many of their products as they can and then trying very hard not to actually deliver them.

Try to imagine that you’re awaiting delivery of your brand-new 50-inch TV, for which you’ve already made a hefty down payment. But the company calls to tell you that you violated some obscure clause in your contract, so they’re not going to bring it! In the health insurance world, it’s called “rescission.” Insurers decide they won’t honor the contract because of some alleged violation by the policy-holder.

They do that to keep their fat profit margins. Health care giant Wellpoint has proposed substantial rate increases in the individual market (policies for individuals who don’t have employer-based insurance), not just in California but in several other states. In congressional testimony last week, WellPoint president Angela Braly said the company had to raise premiums because of soaring health care costs. But Wellpoint hardly seems to be hurting; it reported a profit last year of $4.7 billion.

California’s Wellpoint subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, is not only proposing stunning rate hikes. The state’s insurance commissioner has announced that the company has also repeatedly violated state law by failing to pay medical claims on time and by misrepresenting policy provisions to consumers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

So, it seems, the company tells you that a policy offers broad coverage when they’re trying to get you to buy insurance. But when you need the coverage, you find out that the policy doesn’t offer broad coverage, after all. That helps explain why so many people, even with health insurance, go bankrupt after a costly illness.

Without stricter government oversight and regulation — which is the essence of the health care reform proposed by President Obama — health care costs will continue to soar while consumers get less and less. Obama’s proposals don’t represent a “government takeover,” as critics contend. The vast majority of Americans would still get their insurance in the private marketplace. But insurers would have to live by a different set of rules.

Vice President Joe Biden said it best at the summit: If Republicans agree that insurance reform is necessary, that health insurance companies should be prohibited from turning away consumers because of pre-existing conditions, that they should be prevented from enforcing lifetime caps on benefits, then the GOP must see the need for strict government regulation. You don’t get those changes in the “free market.”

And, unlike the choice of buying a computer or a car, you’d don’t really get to walk away from health insurance. If you do, you take your life into your hands. Having health insurance increases your chances of longevity.

Once upon a time, political leaders realized that all Americans needed access to electricity, and they stepped in to ensure that all households got that small miracle at reasonable rates — something that the “free market” could not provide. Americans need a similar intervention in health care now.

The Link
This is great news! The Ba’athist regime has been officially destroyed, but unofficially, former Ba’athists are regaining their influence. The secular Ba’athists work towards a great political system but are less extreme (in terms of nationalism and secularism) then the Social Nationalists of Syria. But pragmatically the Ba’athists have achieved more.

People like the Ba’athists are people who should be ruling over the Middle East. People who have a sense of identity, but are not religious zealots. Similar people should be ruling over Israel right now.

BAGHDAD —

Iraq on Friday announced the reinstatement of 20,000 former army officers who were dismissed after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, in a gesture toward healing sectarian resentment over the disbanding of Saddam Hussein’s military.

But the timing of the announcement raised suspicions that Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his allies were just currying votes in upcoming parliamentary election.

The skepticism underscored how bitter feelings have become between Iraq’s factions ahead of the March 7 vote. Many had hoped the vote would be a chance to move past the Shiite-Sunni divisions that have wracked Iraq since Saddam’s fall nearly seven years ago, but instead the mistrust between the two sides has become starker.

Al-Maliki is facing Sunni anger after a Shiite-led commission barred 440 candidates—mostly Sunnis—from running because of suspected ties to Saddam’s former ruling party.

In theory, the military reinstatements should be good news for Sunnis. The 2003 order by Iraq’s then-American governor L Paul Bremer to dissolve Saddam’s 400,000-strong army—the largest in the Middle East on the eve of the 2003 invasion—is widely seen as one of the factors that fueled Sunnis’ sense of alienation with the new Iraq from the very start.

Sunnis dominated Saddam’s regime, and many top military officers came from the community. Jobless and angry, some from the old army took their expertise to the Sunni insurgency that broke out in the summer of 2003, seeking an income for their families or revenge against the Americans and their Iraqi allies. The disbanding, along with the looting of the army’s bases and depots across much of Iraq, is widely blamed for the tortuously slow pace of standing, equipping and training the country’s new army.

Over past years, thousands of officers from the disbanded army have trickled back to service in an ongoing process of reintegration. Friday’s announcement that 20,000 were being reinstated was the largest known single batch of returnees.

Defense Ministry Spokesman Mohammed al-Askari denied that the announcement was linked to the March 7 election for a 325-seat legislature, insisting that it was made when funding for the 20,000 positions became available.

“This measure has nothing to do with elections, rather it is related to budget allocations,” he said.

A Defense Ministry statement said the rehired personnel would be reinstated as of Sunday, but a senior Iraqi military official said the process of absorbing so many could take weeks and maybe months to complete.

The official said a systematic process to reinstate Saddam-era army personnel has been ongoing for months, with a ministry committee screening officers and noncommissioned officers for ties to Saddam’s regime or involvement in atrocities or war crimes.

He said reinstatements were strictly based on the army’s present requirements and mainly benefited officers from the rank of colonel down to noncommissioned officers. U.S. commanders have in the past pointed out that Iraq’s new army, which is at least 300,000-strong, desperately needed mid-ranking and experienced noncommssioned officers.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Critics, however, said the sudden return of their jobs might influence the votes of the reinstated personnel.

“No doubt, this move is related to the elections and it aims at gaining votes,” said Maysoun al-Damlouji, a candidate from a secular block led by former prime minister Ayad Allawi, a fierce critic of al-Maliki.

The United States hopes a transparent and credible election will bolster national reconciliation efforts and pave the way for its combat forces to go home by the end of August and the rest by next year’s end.

Regardless of the motive, reinstating the large group of officers would go some way toward helping reconciliation. Al-Maliki has raised Sunni resentment with his relentless denouncements of Baathists in Iraqi politics. But at the same time, he has shown some flexibility on the issue when it comes to the military.

Al-Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government has already reinstated many Sunni officers as top commanders in the new army. It also waived “de-Baathification” rules and reinstated generals—Sunnis and Shiites—who once held senior positions in Saddam’s ruling party.

Analyst Nabil Salim, a Baghdad University political science professor, attributed Friday’s announcement to political and election considerations, but also saw it as a boost for the U.S.-backed Iraqi security forces as they fight insurgents.

“It is a good step to provide the new army with badly needed expertise,” he said.

What to do with officials from the Baath and former army officers has been a key source of tension for postwar Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands, including army personnel, were purged from jobs at the government and security forces under a controversial program conceived by Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority—the U.S. occupation government.

Many were allowed to return to government service in 2008. But the issue remains a source of friction, especially after the election ban, ordered by a committee led by two Shiite candidates believed to have ties to Iran.

One of the banned candidates, prominent Sunni lawmaker Saleh al-Mutlaq, pulled his party out of the election in protest, but he reversed the decision on Thursday. The decision effectively lifts the lingering threat that minority Sunnis would boycott the vote.

In yet another twist Friday, the spokesman of the Shiite-led political vetting committee that drafted the blacklist, Mudhafar al-Batat, said the panel would file a lawsuit against al-Mutlaq for his alleged involvement in attacks and killings carried out by insurgent groups linked to the Baath party.

Al-Mutlaq has repeatedly denied any links to the insurgency and says he quit the Baath party in the 1970s

For the purpose of clarity, I am specifying a few key points.  The goal is to explain a worldview in detail rather than using buzzwords.

Key visionary points:

1) “Up to date” views on religion.  Perhaps tolerance and collaboration but certainly not agreement with precepts that are clearly refuted by modern science.

2) “Up to date” views on race.  An acknowledgment of human biodiversity but rejection of  unscientific theories.  “Racial science” but not bigotry.  “Race realism.”

3) Integration of technology into society, as opposed to using technology as a means to deconstruct the concept of nationality.  Integration, not radical globalization.

4) A realization that capitalism can implode without authoritarianism.  Technology helps authority to gain more control over the market for national self-interest.

5) Not only should governments use technology to keep their people loyal, but inversely, the people should use technology to keep their governments loyal.

6) Population control ideally avoiding abortion.

7) “Up to date” views on ideology.  No following Marx, Mussolini, Thomas Jefferson, Muhammad, Jefferson Davis, Moses or Adolf Hitler word for word.  It is the year 2010 now.

Enough of this politically correct bullshit.

Younger predominately male workers need to stop waiting at the back of the line (we’ve waited long enough, how long are we supposed to wait), and really start to discriminate against older workers wherever we have the power to do so. It is the older generation, this baby boomer generation of screwups, who ruined the economy, and it is the older generation who imposes flawed ideology on the younger the generation. The older bourgeoisie useless parasites can shut their mouths about age discrimination, and realize how unfairly good they have it. They can shut up about how hard they worked to get to where they are, and realize that it was easy to succeed until they screwed everything up. The blatant nepotism! The preference of age over skill! The desire to hire a worker solely because he/she is more experienced, when he/she may be an idiot. They run up deficits, they deconstruct the ethnic identity of nations, they outsource jobs, they start imperialistic wars for liberal capitalism, they flood the working class with more immigrant competition and they think they are clever with their two party system.

(note that this article is merely artistic and I don’t really advocate violence)
Death to the bourgeoisie! Exterminate them. Imprison them. Kick them. Spit on them. Throw rocks at them. Hell piss on them. Throw them into volcanoes and then clap when the volcanoes erupt. Make them suffocate on their dollar bills.

These points made by Nick Griffin, and quoted by Lawrence Auster, are really quite relevant. It is an error to turn against Israel just because a crowd of crazy people who are rejected both by the JDL and Israel display paranoid personality disorder, DSM IV. “The nazis are out to get me.” The Marx quotations are valid, as are the points about Monarchs employing Jews so they can hide behind the title wave of dissent from the masses. I suspect similar tactics may be used by modern capitalist rulers.

It would be pleasurable to purge paranoids like Chaim Ben Pesach from the Zionist movement, but I just realized it’s not necessary. It has already occurred. The JDL has rejected him and Israel has banned him. Perhaps the JDL and Israel are neo-nazi organizations, and Rick Rubin was the Fuhrer. Allen-T was the SS Stormtrooper and EagleEye the Polish-Ukrainian collaborator.

I wonder if Kahanists would consider Lawrence Auster to be a neo-nazi. After all, his conversion to Christianity must be an attempt to genocide the Jewish people spiritually.

The better move is not to turn against Zionism, but to purge the Zionist movement of its undesirable mental defectives. The Zionist movement should move towards national bolshevism and integral corporatist nationalism, and away from Taliban style religiosity.

This is just a “theory” and not a call to action!

A dictatorship modeled off of Pol Pot’s khmer rouge could really rewrite the religious culture of the middle east, and then allow it to progress technologically after its original period of purification.

And don’t forget that pol pot was a nationalist!

The Translated Link from Arabic

Agencies – Media sources said that former Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the investigation committee on the Iraq war when he claimed that attention to topple former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began after the attacks atheist ten of September. And removed the newspaper “The Independent” British unveiling of the document did not receive the Commission of Inquiry into the Iraq war, confirms that the government of Tony Blair made secret plans to drum up support for the establishment of an internal coup against Saddam Hussein two years before the invasion of Iraq. The newspaper “The Independent” The British Foreign Office officials drafted a plan called “contract with the people,” suggested to the dissidents in Iraq that toppling Saddam would receive support from Britain, also pledged to provide aid and debt cancellation of oil contracts and the provision of commercial transactions as soon as the ouster The newspaper “has been the completion of the plan, titled” Confidential – for the eyes of the British and U.S. “in the June 11, 2001, and approved by the cabinet of ministers.” The document said Britain would “want to deal with Iraq that respects the rights of its people and live in peace with its neighbors and abide by international law and the right of the Iraqi people to live in a society based on rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest, and that respects human rights, freedom and prosperity the economy. The document said “those who wish to be published a call for change in Iraq deserve our support. We look forward to the day when Iraq who is due to join the international community, will receive a new system to reschedule debt and aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund aid package and trade of the European Union.” Mr Blair said during his testimony before the commission last week that serious attention to the overthrow of Saddam breed only after ten atheist attacks of September, which changed from “a risk”. For his part, “said Ed Duffy, spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in foreign affairs, said the document questioned the validity of the certificate made by Blair should have been published before hearing his testimony on Friday. “The plan to support the Iraqis who seek to topple Saddam may be less harmful, and that was without a doubt the most legitimate what happened. However, it appears that Blair had always intended to change the system since the early and before the atheist of September.” “It seems, however, that veil of secrecy was lifted from the documents is crucial, which stop an obstacle to question Blair and other people.” In addition, newspaper “The Guardian” The Commission of Inquiry Celkot Blair will call again to make further submissions before it. She said Blair would be questioned in public and in secret after the committee expressed concern that his testimony on the legality of the invasion are contrary to those made by the former British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

This article focuses on Blair, but it is clear that Bush was trying to downplay the Afghanistan war, and switch to Iraq, even though a stronger case can be made against Afghanistan than against Iraq. Iraq is secular and never attacked USA. It was back stabbed. Afghanistan is theocratic and could be accused of Al-Qaeda collaboration. Yet Bush wanted to get the focus off of Afghanistan and onto Iraq.

The motives are ulterior! Profit and gain!

Ba’athist link
Social Nationalist link
Excellent!

The Link
(I apologize, but I have to link to the pedophora here. This is not an endorsement!)

Here is an interesting post about Pol Pot and how he was really a Khmer nationalist and not a Communist. He adopted some Marxist rhetoric but followed his own line. And he sided more with Mao than with USSR. USSR of course had backed off from its Stalinist line, but still Maoism is strongly adapted to Chinese characteristics and quite different from Russian Bolshevism.

I already knew this, but it adds some extra angles to the discussion.

The link